Dan Snow's History Hit - Emperor Augustus

Episode Date: September 16, 2025

Augustus has often been hailed as Rome’s greatest emperor - he ended civil war, built an empire and declared a new age of peace. But behind the architectural marvels and military triumphs lies a story of ruthless power plays, propaganda and dynastic uncertainty.In this episode, we're joined by Gregory S. Aldrete, a Professor Emeritus of history and humanistic studies at the University of Wisconsin–Green Bay. He pulls back the curtain on Augustus’s rule to ask: Was he truly Rome’s greatest emperor?Produced by James Hickmann and edited by Dougal Patmore.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe.We'd love to hear your feedback - you can take part in our podcast survey here: https://insights.historyhit.com/history-hit-podcast-always-on.You can also email the podcast directly at [e-mail]. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hello folks, Dan Snow here. I am throwing a party to celebrate 10 years of Dan Snow's history hit. I'd love for you to be there. Join me for a very special live recording of the podcast in London, in England on the 12th of September to celebrate the 10 years. You can find out more about it and get tickets with the link in the show notes. Look forward to seeing you there. Thank you for your patience. Your call is important. important. Can't take being on hold anymore. Fizz is 100% online, so you can make the switch in minutes. Mobile plans start at $15 a month. Certain conditions apply. Details at fizz.ca. Two thousand years ago, one man reshaped the Roman world. He ended a century of brutal civil wars. He forged an empire from the ashes of a collapsed republic.

He declared an age of peace, the Pax Romana. His name was not Julius Caesar. His name was Augustus. Born Gaius Octavis, he was actually the great nephew of Julius Caesar, but he was his heir, and that's important. He was a teenager when Julius Caesar was assassinated. He was regarded as a peripheral character, I suppose. And yet, and yet, he outmaneuvered Rome's most powerful generals, statesmen, and rivals. And by the time he was through, he was the first Roman emperor.

But he was always very careful never to call himself that. He, in fact, presented himself as the restorer of the republic. He appeared to maintain and celebrate the old institutions of Roman. Rome, but actually he was concentrating all power in his own hands. To do that, he needs to be a master of propaganda. He was very good at commissioning monuments and literature and coinage to project an image of Republican stability, returning to more ancient norms, as well as celebrating the blessings of peace and prosperity. Behind the scenes, though, he was brutal. Opponents, detractors, critics had a habit of disappearing.

Laws that he wanted had a habit of passing through the Senate easily. He reorganized the military. He initially expanded the empire's frontiers. He introduced sweeping reforms and customs that would, well, shape Roman life for generations. He also was lucky enough to have that greatest of advantages for all would-be imperial founders. And that is, he didn't die. He lived for a long time. He ruled for more than 40 years.

in fact, longer than any emperor that came after him. And at his death, it's probably true to say that Rome stood stronger and richer and more secure than it had ever been before. So the important question we're going to ask in this episode of Dancer's history is, was he Rome's greatest emperor? Yes, his reign did mark the start of something new. But it also sowed some seeds that would be the source of extraordinary instability in later decades.

On top of that, there were more successful emperors on the battlefield. Trajan conquered vast new territories. Marx Aurelius was probably a bit more thoughtful, a bit more cerebral. And later emperors, like Constantine, left indelible Marx, really bringing back the empire from the brink of total dissolution. So today we're going to hear the case for Augustus. Was he the greatest? We're going to explore his rise to power.

Was he a political genius? Was he lucky? Well, we'll find out. We're going to talk all about the empire who built and the legacy he left. and we're going to weigh him up. We'll weigh him up against the other empress, folks. We love a bit of weighing up. Joining us is Gregory S. Aldrette, Professor Emeritus of History in Humanistic Studies at the University of Wisconsin Green Bay. Here's our chat about Augustus recorded in the month of August. No coincidence. Enjoy. T-minus 10.

The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. God save the king. No black, white, unity, till there is spirit. than black unit. Never to go to war with one another again. And lift off, and the shuttle has cleared the power. Greg, when Octavian was born, was he obviously going to be Caesar's Pleist Calais or was he just a pretty random relative? Well, he was a pretty random relative. So he was a grand nephew of Julius Caesar. And he's really one of these amazing historical figures who just kind of comes out of nowhere and ends up changing the world. So I think if you were to go around the 40s BC and ask, you know, which person will come to dominate the Mediterranean, he would not be one of the ones that you

would pick. In fact, at the time of Caesar's assassination in 44 BC, Octavian was a completely obscure teenage boy. So he was 18 years old at that moment. And he hadn't been tapped to be Caesar's success or anything. So he comes out of nowhere to really become one of the most important figures in this era. So, Greg, why? Why does these powerful allies of Caesar like Mark Anthony, why do they need this kid? Is it just about blood? They don't need him and they really don't want him. So the death of Julius Caesar basically created a power void. And there was no shortage of people eager and well positioned to fill that void. So on one side, you had the conspirators, these senators who had killed Caesar, Brutus, Cassius, guys like that. On the other side,

you had a bunch of Caesar's former lieutenants, chiefly Mark Antony, who wanted to just step into his shoes. There was another guy, Lepidus, another officer of Caesar, who also had these ambitions. There was even a son of Caesar's old arch enemy, Pompey the Great, Sextus Pompey, who now saw this as an opportunity to rise to power. And there was the bulk of the Senate, who were just sort of trying to figure out who to back and which way to turn.

But what really changed everything was the moment when Julius Caesar's Will was opened up in red. And to Antony's great annoyance, he was not designated as the primary heir. Instead, Caesar named this teenage grand nephew Octavian as the primary heir and posthumously adopted Octavian as Caesar's son. This is something you could do in Roman law. Now, why does all this matter? Well, under Roman law, when you get adopted, you can take your adoptive father's name. So legally, Octavian becomes Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, and he could use the name Caesar in daily life. Again, why is this a big deal? Well, all over the Mediterranean, you have tens of thousands of hardened veteran soldiers who are programmed to follow the orders of Julius Caesar.

and a lot of these guys now transfer their allegiance from the old Caesar to the new Caesar, Octavian. So basically, overnight, this teenage boy acquires a personal army, and this makes him a contender. This elevates him up to the ranks of someone who has to be taken seriously. Is he a teenage prodigy, Alexander or Henry V? Is it just a bit of luck and a bit of breeding? Or is he always a bit of a figurehead? Is he a puppet? The tension is that all the other people at the time clearly thought he could just be a puppet. He was someone who could be manipulated, used, and then discarded. Cicero, the famous order, says exactly that.

He says, this young man should be flattered and then discarded. So all these people clearly thought he was naive, he could be taken advantage of. But it turns out that Octavian was a very, very sharp individual. He was very smart, and he was very good at manipulation. So he had a real talent for sort of getting other people to do what he wanted, and he had an extremely good understanding of the role of propaganda, how to manipulate both his own image with the public and others. And so even though, for example, he's a lousy general. I mean, this is an era of fantastic generals. Mark Antony was a very skilled general.

Even though Octavian is not good as a military man, even though he looked sickly, he was slight, he was relatively short, he didn't seem very imposing, hidden within that unimpressive physical demeanor was a very clever conniving mind. And so everybody underestimated him. No one took him seriously, and that turned out to be a fatal mistake for everyone. What are the various stages? I mean, initially, in terms of defeating Caesar's assassins, do other people take the lead? Is it principally, say, Mark Antony? Yes. And I mean, in 43 BC, so about a year after the assassination, Antony, Lepidus, and Octavian put aside their differences. So you might have expected those three to turn on each other immediately. But instead, they put aside their differences and formed the second triumvirate, which was this temporary

very uneasy alliance of them against the liberators or the murderers of Caesar and a lot of the Senate. And Octavian was very much, again, the junior member of this triumbrate. Antony was the lead here. And they ended up fighting a big battle, the Battle of Philippi and Macedon, where the armies of Antony and Octavian fought against those of Brutus Cassius and a bunch of the Senate. And again, Octavian was a bad general. He actually lost the battle in his section of the battlefield. But it didn't matter because Antony was a very good general. He won his section and he secured the overall victory. So at that point, the Triumbers had triumphed over the assassins and the Senate. And also around this time, the Triumbers issued prescriptions. So this is a complicated

way by which they put to death their enemies. Over 100 senators, including Cicero, were put to death. Several thousand Roman equates, Roman knights were also put to death. And after this purge, the remaining Senate was ready to meekly accept whichever man emerged as dominant. And over the next decade, Lepidus and Sextus Pompey were defeated or pushed aside. And so it came down to Antony versus Octavian. So you started out with all these candidates. They keep getting winnowed down, winnowed down, and finally it's down to Antony and Octavian. And the two aren't quite ready to fight one another, so they divide up the Roman world. Antony gets his choice, and he picks the eastern half of the Roman world. That's the richer, wealthier half. Octavian is left with the West.

And so this now sets up the final conflict between the two men. And in the final conflict, people will be familiar with Cleopatra and Anthony in their love story and the fact that Octavian eventually does go to war against them two halves of the Roman world, there's a decisive clash, Actium, naval battle. Again, are we looking for genius here on behalf of Octavian, or is he well served by his subordinates, people like Agrippa? It's a combination of things, but I think it's in that decade, sort of the 30s BC, when this incipient war is coming,

everyone knows it's coming, but it gets delayed for a while, that you really see Octavian's genius. because, of course, Antony does have his famous affair with Cleopatra, who is the queen of Egypt. And what Octavian does during this period is he wages a war of propaganda against Antony. So Antony starts out in the stronger position. He has more wealth. He has more resources. He has more soldiers. But Octavian spreads rumors. For example, he spreads rumors that Antony is really under the thumb of Cleopatra, this nasty foreign queen, this seductress, this controlling Antony. And so Octavian says, he spreads a rumor, for example, that if Antony wins, he's going to move

the capital of the Roman Empire to Egypt. It's not true, but people believe it. And he's able to portray what is really a civil war, a war between two Roman warlords as a war of Romans versus a foreign enemy, Cleopatra, this foreign queen. And eventually, he even maneuvers the Senate into declaring Cleopatra an official enemy of Rome. And this now puts Antony in a very awkward position because either he has to stay loyal to his lover, who he really seems to have loved, and Cleopatra also provide a lot of financial assistance to Antony. So either he stays loyal to her, which makes him an ally of an enemy of Rome, or he breaks with her and loses all of her financial and military support. So purely through words, Octavian has maneuvered Antony into a disadvantageous position.

And when the war finally breaks out, yes, another of Octavian's talents is he has very loyal friends, especially this guy Agrippa, who is a brilliant general, but will win battles for Octavian, but allow Octavian to take the credit. So Agrippa defeats Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC. Both of them commit suicide or are murdered. Octavian is left as the sole ruler of Rome. And Actium marks effectively the end of the 800-year-old Roman Republic and the beginning of the Roman Empire when emperors would rule Rome.

And under the name Augustus, Octavian becomes the first of those emperors. But this is the important thing, Greg. There have been other men who have dominated the Roman world before. You've got Sulla, you've had Julius Caesar. You've now got Octavis. Is it the system that changes? Does he build the Roman principate? Does he build this extraordinary institution that is the imperial crown?

I would argue that this is exactly why Octavian slash Augustus is the most influential of all the emperes, because he establishes the blueprint for how to do it. And he's won the war. He's taken over Rome and is ruling it as one man. but the challenge, the riddle, the puzzle that he has to solve is how do you rule Rome as one man and not get killed for looking like a king? This is what had happened to Julius Caesar. He had won the wars, he had taken over, he was one man, but he acted arrogantly. He acted like a king, and he was murdered for it. And the Romans have this deep-seeded, traditional hatred of kings,

of one-man rule. So here's the position that Octavian is in, and 31 BC. He's won the war. He's one guy in charge, but now he has to stay alive. He has to make the Romans accept his rule. And again, it's his ability to manipulate public image, to play with propaganda that allows him basically to convince the Roman people that he's not truly in charge. There's a whole plethora of ways he does this, but this is his great con. This is his scheme, that he's able to rule Rome as one man, but not overtly look like it. And he does this well enough that the Romans accept him. He's not assassinated. He rules for a very long time, and he establishes the precedent for all the emperors who follow him. He does that by living

in a very modest house on Palatine Hill, for example, doesn't he? But does it look to the outside like the Senate has been restored? Or certainly peace has been restored. I guess people like that. He was good at hiding the reality of his power. Is he? Yes, exactly. His solution, if you will, to this challenge is brilliant, and it has a number of different distinct strands. So first, there's the political element. How is he going to exercise power and not look like it? And what he does here is he formally, in 27BC, resigns from all of his offices. And he says, I've given back all power to the Senate and people of Rome. But what he actually does is very sneaky. He contrives that the Senate votes him. the powers of various offices in the Roman government, but he doesn't hold any of the offices at any one moment. So for example, he's given the power of a tribune who can propose or veto laws, but he's not one of the ten annually elected tribunes. He's given the power of a consul. Consuls can command armies, can lead meetings of the Senate, but he's not one of the two annually elected consuls. So on the

surface, the Roman Republic looks like it's continuing as it always has. Each year, they have elections, they elect magistrates, these guys are officially running the government on a day-to-day basis. But kind of floating behind them or above them or beside this official power structure is Octavian, who possesses all the same powers as all the members of the government combined, and at any moment he could pop up and exercise them, but most the time he doesn't. So it just doesn't give the appearance that he's ruling Rome, even though in reality he is. A second leg of his settlement or his control is the military. I mean, real power is always how many guys with swords do you command? And again, officially, the Senate controls most

of the provinces and appoints their governors. But the exception is a small handful of provinces whose governors are handpicked by Octavian, and it's not many of them. But which ones are they? Well, they're the ones where the army is based. So I think it's of the 28 Roman legions, 23 of them are located in this small number of provinces whose generals are personally chosen by and loyal to Octavian. And then, as you said, another element of this is his behavior.

He acts modestly. he lives in a simple house. He eats simple food. He doesn't wear elaborate or innate clothing or jewelry. He wears an ordinary white toga like any other citizen. So he's someone who's content with the reality of power. He doesn't need the external trappings. And he's very polite and deferential to the Senate. Now, of course, it helps that he killed a thousand of them who might have been most opposed to him. But still, once he's done that, he can afford to be. be generous. He can afford to put on this pretense of humility. So it's all about perception versus reality, and he plays that line beautifully. You listen to Dan Snow's Historyhead. There's more coming. on hold anymore. FIS is 100% online, so you can make the switch in minutes. Mobile plans start at $15 a month. Certain conditions apply. Details at fizz.ca. The best spouse for a Habsburg is another Habsburg. That was the motto and the master plan

of the family that through strategic marriages and in breeding didn't just gain power, they became Europe. I'm Professor Susanna Lipscomb, and in a new series on Not Just the Tudors, I'm coming face to face with the emperors, kings and queens who shaped the continent, not to mention their own jaw lines. Power, scandal and naked ambition. Delve into the dynasty that ruled half the known world on not just the tutors from History Hit, wherever you get your podcasts.

Inherent, though, is one of the prime. problems with the Roman imperial system and how turbulent it was, and it was very rare they got passed down successfully from father to son, for example. There were coups, many emperors were assassinated, there were short-lived, people fancied the job. Is that thanks to Augustus as well? Is there something in the founding DNA of that imperial system? Because he sort of lied about it, because he didn't give it the giant panoply of authority of a kind of Chinese imperial system that meant that it was a little bit uncertain and turbulent and insecure for the hundreds of years following, or is that just the course of Roman history?

Well, no, this speaks directly to his settlement and how he did it. So if you've created this office, let's call it, of emperor, but it doesn't really formally exist, how do you pass that on to the next person? How do you pass on something so insubstantial or ill-defined? So it's very ambiguity is what allows him to stay. alive and to rule Rome, but that same ambiguity makes it very difficult to define, well, what is he? And one of the biggest problems just comes down to what do you call this guy? What title does he take? He can't call himself a king. He can't call himself, for example,

a dictator. Julius Caesar had been dictator for life. That got him killed because what's a dictator for life? It's a king. So what he does again is he hides his power behind not one title, but a whole bunch of these kind of weird, invented, ambiguous titles. So we talk about him as Augustus. That's the term that historians retroactively apply to this guy once he becomes emperor. Well, Augustus is this interesting word in Latin. It has multiple definitions. On the one hand, someone who is Augustus just means someone who is deeply pious.

They are filled with respect for the gods. But on the other hand, an alternative definition to label someone, as Augustus implies that he himself is holy or somehow deserving of religious veneration. So that kind of duality, simultaneously projecting modesty, he just is obedient to the gods, but also signaling him out as almost a divine being is typical of the things that Octavian does. He's manipulating images. It's a traditional term with a new meaning, and what does it mean exactly? He does the same thing with another title, Prinkeps.

Prinkeps literally means first citizen, and this is a title he takes. Well, what on earth does that mean? On the one hand, it sounds very modest. He's just a citizen. He's just like everybody else. But on the other hand, he's the first citizen. He's somehow also above all the others. And that's an ambiguous term and becomes one of these names or titles.

He calls himself potterpatriai, meaning father of the country. And we get that same duality. On the one hand, a father, or he looks after his children, it's warm and fuzzy. He cares about the Roman people. But remember, in Roman society, a father literally has the power of life and death over his children. He can kill his children at will. So again, it both implies something positive, but also something about his power. And so these titles become the ones used by all the subsequent emperors. And collectively, together, they sort of define his position, but it's this very fuzzy position. And I would say it's pretty obvious. The biggest failure of Augustus is in figuring out a way both to pass on power to the next guy and even more important, how to pick a good person to follow you as emperor. So to make sure the next emperor is well qualified. And this is his greatest failure, because what he ends up settling on is his principle of succession is heredity, who is the nearest male relative.

And other emperors follow this principle, and that's how we end up with kind of crazy people, like Nero and Caligula and all the terrible Roman emperors. So Augustus was brilliant in all these ways, but his great failure is figuring out a way to pick a qualified successor. and the principle he chose basically doomed the Roman Empire to some of its worst, most awful rulers. Well, to be fair to Paul Augustus, many, many other great rulers have made that same mistake. Let's talk about some of his strengths. Was he someone who believed in expanding the Roman Empire, or was he someone who was always a bit

cautious about the idea that the Roman Empire could keep on expanding ad infinitum? I think he couldn't quite make up his mind here. So on the whole, he focused a lot on consistent. consolidation, firming up the frontiers, and there's a whole debate about what does the concept of frontier even mean to the Romans. But yes, he sort of stopped some of that rapid expansion, though in a few areas he did seem to want to keep going. And of course, Germany is the most famous example, which ended in the disaster of the Tudoburg Forest. So that didn't turn out very well for him. That was another problem. But on the whole, he was focused on consolidation. One of the things he does, which I think he doesn't really get credit for, is he managed to settle all those. hundreds of thousands of veterans from all the civil wars they've been raging for the last hundred years and turned them into productive citizens. So, you know, he took a lot of these veterans and he formed colonies of veterans. He gave them grants of land. They became farmers. He established these little outposts of kind of Romanness all over the empire. So a lot of

successful administrative accomplishments, I think, are just settling things down. And it's important to remember the context here. Rome had just come through a hundred years of destructive, bitter, terrible civil wars, and he brings peace. He brings stability. He ends that. And I think that's one of the reasons why the Romans are willing to accept this sort of fiction that, well, he kind of looks like a king. He's kind of got that power, but we'll just all pretend like he's not. It's because he brought peace. It's because he ended the bloodshed. He brought stability. And he was aware of this. He laid that up. Early in his career, he's not at all hesitant about killing his enemies and doing quite cold, calculating things. Late in his career, what he likes to do is to boast about all the nice things he's done for people, all the people he's settled in colonies, all of the donations he's given to the Roman people, all the stuff he's built for them in Rome, all the people he pardoned who were once his enemies. So there's sort of different sides of Augustus, depending on what point in his career you're looking at. And a lot of what he does is just to calm things down, settle things. He himself would have said, well, I

re-founded the Roman Republic or I restored the Roman Republic. We might say he destroyed it, but that's one of the great arguments. Is he more of a destroyer or is he more of a restorer? And you can make legitimate arguments on both sides of that debate. And Greg, he did that thing that all quote unquote great rulers need to do, which is just rule for a long time, right? I'm always very struck in English and British history. You look at the kings that people tend to admire Henry II, Victoria, Elizabeth I. Actually, one of the things they do is just stay alive for long enough that you tend not to get gigantic succession disputes and those kind of things that affect those shorter reins. And they also outlive

all their enemies. People kind of can't remember a time before them. So they appear to assume this almost a demigodlike status. And that is absolutely one of the the keys to his success. He simply lives a really long time, which is kind of funny because he did always have this sickly constitution. And I think everyone assumed he was going to die young. And then he just keeps going and going and going. In fact, he outlives all of the people he had tried to set up as his potential heirs. So all these people who he had tried to set up who were younger than him, much younger than him, all die before him. And he lives forever. So he takes power in 31 effectively after Actium, and he dies in 14 AD. So he rules a very long time. And yes,

the famous line is, by the time Augustus dies, there is no one left alive who can remember the Roman Republic. So when we say, why didn't the Republic come back after his death? Well, there literally was nobody alive who could remember a time when they still had the legitimate Roman Republic. So his system by then just has this inertia. It just keeps. keeps going because it's all that anyone has ever known. So yes, I think bringing peace and living forever are two of the things that by luck ensured that he would become so influential that the model he established would persevere and last and become the paradigm for everyone who followed him. He listened to Dan Snow's history hit. Stick with us.

Thank you for your patience. Your call is important. Can't take being on hold anymore? FIS is 100% online, so you can make the switch in minutes. Mobile plans start at $15 a month. Certain conditions apply. Details at Fizz.ca. The best spouse for a Habsburg is another Habsburg.

That was the motto and the master plan of the family that through strategic marriages and, inbreeding, didn't just gain power, they became Europe. I'm Professor Susanna Lipscomb, and in a new series on Not Just the Tudors, I'm coming face to face with the emperors, kings and queens who shaped the continent, not to mention their own jaw lines. Power, scandal and naked ambition. Delve into the dynasty that ruled half the known world on Not Just the Tudors from History Hit, wherever you get your podcasts.

We talk about peace. There's still trouble on the frontiers, right? We've mentioned Germany. There's one of the great defeats in Roman history on the frontier in Germany. There's a gigantic Illyrian uprising in what we now call the Balkans. There are wars elsewhere, but they might be long and drawn out, but they are dealt with. They're dealt with by Augustus' imperial authorities eventually. certainly there are crises here and there. And again, Agrippa plays a role in the law that he's kind of Augustus's fireman that he dispatches to put down rebellions. Towards the end of his life, there's a rebellion and they send Agrippa. And when they hear a grip is coming, they just give up right away before they even fight because he has such a good reputation for being able to suppress these things. But on the whole, there aren't crises other than maybe the Tudoburg Forest disaster where they lose three entire legions. So his reign is not marked by any of these truly serious things. Rome's great rival, great enemy as an empire, was the Parthian Empire out to the east based in Mesopotamia, Iran, Iraq. One of the

accomplishments that Augustus was most proud of was that rather than having these wars with the Parthian empires had been the standard before and after, he has relatively peaceful diplomatic relations with them. And he even persuades them at one point to return the Eagle standards, the legionary standards that the Parthians had captured when they had destroyed the army of Crassus, and they had captured these standards. And this was an enormous humiliation for the Romans. And Augustus persuaded them to return these sacred objects to him. And he was so proud of that that on the most famous image of Augustus, the prima port Augustus that's in the Vatican today, he's wearing a breastplate. depicted right on the chest of this thing is apartheon handing back one of these eagle standards

to a Roman. So, I mean, that was his great diplomatic achievement. And though he did have to deal with some crises, I think on the whole, he was more concerned with, like I say, solidifying the Roman Empire. And what about internally? He rebuilds Rome. He famously, he turns it, he found it in, but he's found it in bricks and left it in marble. And he's responsible for all sorts of amazing building work. Is that reflected in market reforms, legal reforms, anything that really does affect the normal people's lives in the empire? Would they have noticed a difference? Absolutely, especially if you live in the city of Rome. So yes, I mean, the famous line is, I found Rome made of bricks. I left it made a marble. Not entirely true, but he did truly transform the city of

Rome, especially the campus marshes, which had previously been just sort of an underdeveloped plane. And Agrippa again takes the lead here. He builds baths. He builds the first version of the pantheon. He builds some new aqueducts. He renovates the sewers. These are practical projects. These are things which directly would have affected the lives of the inhabitants of the city and made them better. So their water supply was better. Their sewers were better. They had places to go to relax. They had gardens. They had baths. So these were dramatic changes to the city. And then he also did things that were a little more symbolic in their nature. So he built the forum of Augustus, which is attached to this temple of Mars Ultur, which was this massive, elaborate, beautiful

complex just north of the Roman forum. And the temple of Mars Ultur, Ultor means Avenger, Mars the Avenger. This was something he vowed for having avenged the death of Julius Caesar. So he builds this new temple and it becomes a showpiece. And the Excedra, the sort of colonnade surrounding this temple, become a hall of Roman heroes. So he puts all these statues there of famous Roman heroes from the past and of course members of himself and his family. And so he's drawing this line between the past and the present, between sort of Rome's distant founding fathers and the current Julian family, which is ruling it. So it's this great work. of, again, propaganda. It sends this message. Look, we're the continuation of this tradition. We're

taking it to glorious new heights. So, I mean, that's the kind of thing he did. He builds his mausoleum as well, this huge thing out in a campus marshes. He builds the Arapakas, another brilliant work of art and architecture, which functions as propaganda for his reign. And these are things which would both impress and benefit, particularly the people of Rome. And he gave lots of just cash handouts and entertainments to the people. So in the race guest eye, his autobiography, he lists all the money that he gave to the people of Rome and all the shows he put on. And this becomes part of, if you will, the job of being emperor that you're supposed to provide for the physical needs of the people, provide them with entertainment, and provide them sometimes with just money

or food. Was he personally popular? As far as we can judge, he would have been a popular with the Romans themselves, not just with subsequent Romans. Yes. I mean, he wasn't an enormously charismatic individual, like some people just have that kind of charisma, but his official persona was one that seemed to have been accepted and relatively popular. So, yes, the people, they didn't sort of adore him in the way that they might have certain other people, but he was popular because he did these things which affected them in a positive way. And he does become this paradigm for the good emperor, for what emperors are supposed to be. So later emperors will sometimes be compared to him. So at venues like the Circus Maximus or the Coliseum,

it was traditional for crowds to chant acclamations to the current emperor. And one of the things you can chant is as good as Augustus, because he is seen as this ideal that you can compare other people's behavior to. Let's come on to the succession. It's not really his fault if all his very, very impressive relatives die. By the way, as you're speaking about Agrippa, I'm like, God, every ruling he's an Agrippa. An incredibly capable, brilliant person across several different fields who has no ambitions to replace you in your job. We should be all lucky enough to having a gripper in our life. Well, I think Agrippa did hope to replace Augustus, but he, of course, also died before him. Oh, really? Okay. But in the due course of

time, I guess, I suppose, right? Yes, no. He was not going to depose him. Okay. So I think the assumption was Agrippa had a very kind of robust physique, even though they were the same age. Everybody thought Agrippa would outlive Augustus and that he would become the second emperor. There was a whole succession thing. So I mean, Augustus first looked to his sister, Octavia, who had a promising son named Marcellus. And that was Augustus's first candidate to take over after him. So he granted Marcellus all these extraordinary honors. He seems to have been a good kid, seems to have been good, but then he died at age 19. then Augustus focuses on Agrippa. He sort of becomes his heir, but Agrippa dies, but then Agrippa has two sons, Gaius and Lucius, and Augustus adopts them as his kids, but then they also die, I think, at age 19 and 23. And so finally, poor Augustus is left with the only male relative he has is someone he never really liked. It's his wife's son by a previous marriage, Tiberius Claudius Nero. And this guy, who is clearly not some, someone that Augustus favored is the one who, by necessity, ends up getting adopted against his son and becomes the second emperor. Yeah, as I said before, he's not the first or the last great ruler to be let down by his choice of a success or even a system to replace him. It's hard, isn't it? When we're talking about great emperors, what do we even mean by that? But I guess we can say simply, in terms of emperors who left Rome stronger than they found it, is Augustus up there

with the best, is he number one? I mean, if we're talking about, you know, who's the greatest Roman emperor at all hinges on what you define as greatness? I would argue that if we're talking about influence, who is the most influential Roman emperor, then yes, I think a very good case can be made for Augustus, because everyone does follow his example. Everyone does sort of follow the precedence that he lays down. And the fascinating thing is, here's this guy who changed the world, who becomes the role model for rulers in Europe for the next, really much longer beyond Rome for next year, a couple thousand years. But what truly motivated him or his kind of inner life remain a mystery. So we don't really know what motivate him or what he

really thought. I think it's very interesting that when he dies at the age of 77, supposedly his final words were a quote that was used by actors in the theater where he says, if I've played my roll well, then clap your hands and dismiss me from the stage with applause. And if that's legitimate, that quote, it's very interesting because it shows that he thought of himself as an actor, that he was playing the role of emperor and he did it supremely well. But what he himself was like, what the true Octavian or Augustus was like, I think remains something of a mystery. And that's quite fascinating. So where does he rank for you? What do you think? Among emperes, he's pretty high.

I mean, like I say, I think influence matters a lot. So I think he was the most influential emperor. I mean, even eight centuries after his death, when Charlemagne, this Germanic sort of king, is taken over Europe and is crowned by the Pope on Christmas Day of 800 AD, what is the nicest title that the Pope can think of to give Charlemagne? He says, you are Charles Augustus, emperor of the Roman. And if that doesn't speak to the power of the image of Augustus that he has as the ideal ruler, I don't know what does, that 800 years later, these sort of European kings in Germany are throwing around his name as the nicest thing that you can call someone. I think that testifies to the longevity of the image he creates. Well, Greg, thank you for coming on and making a very, very strong case indeed. Thank you very much, Greg, for coming on.

All right. Thank you so much to you for listening to this episode of Dan Snow's History Hit. We could not make this podcast without you. That's actually true. So make sure, well, if you want to keep it going, that is, to hit follow in your podcast player right now. You'll get new episodes dropped into your podcast library automatically by the power of tech. You can listen anywhere you get your pods, Apple, Spotify, even BBC sounds. Imagine a world. Just imagine. You never miss an episode of this podcast.

I mean, it's there. The technology makes that possible. That could be your reality right now if you hit Follett. See you next time. Can't take being on hold anymore? FIS is 100% online, so you can make the switch in minutes. Mobile plans start at $15 a month. Certain conditions apply. Details at FIS.com.

Thank you.